I think I deciphered what went wrong with new Star Trek. Rushing it to be Ronald D. Moore-esque.

[Vger23]

The only defense most have to my argument is a fallacy. That supposedly the 60s (or 90s) had more racism or bigotry and therefore Roddenberry's vision of a better future is tainted. That's a ludicrously wrong argument for the simple reason that Roddenberry didn't die in the 60s and he envisioned TNG and even if the 60s (or 90s) culture had more racism the intention was still hopeful and at the end of the day and most importantly even if the culture of the 60s (or 90s) had more bigotry the intention of the vision was clearly there since compared to the rest of the culture of the real world at the time it was an extremely improved society.

I'm not so sure I see "most" people saying that. I do see a lot of people saying that bleached, homogenized, perfected societies and/or people that many fans seem to think define Roddenberry's Vision are

1. Not actually what Star Trek is about
2. A load of steaming iguana feces

 

[fireproof78]

at the time it was an extremely improved society.

Improved does not mean perfect. The aspects of Federation society depicted in later productions are consistent with what was shown when Roddenberry was around, i.e. there was still bigotry, still violence, as well as the capacity to work together despite differences.

 

[Racefuel]

Consider where, as a whole, western society is right now (2020) and then compare it to where it was in 1720.

300 years. As a whole has society improved? Sure! Is it a dramatic improvement? Absolutely!

Is it perfect? No way in hell.

It's not unreasonable to expect dramatic improvement but not perfection. Balancing Roddenberry's absolute stupidity in some ways while striving to show improvement but still be able to resonate with contemporary people is vital to Star Trek.

 

[fireproof78]

Balancing Roddenberry's absolute stupidity in some ways while striving to show improvement but still be able to resonate with contemporary people is vital to Star Trek.

I think this is my biggest complaint with the "evolved" sensibility presented at times is that it didn't feel obtainable.

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

My question when reading this is: why do some people think we need more space for thread titles?

 

[Lord Garth]

Two thoughts:

1. The Original Poster is projecting his own thoughts onto what Ron Moore said. See below after my second point.

2. I thought the early-first season felt somewhat similar to Battlestar Galactica, but that feeling completely disappeared by the beginning of the second season.

What Ron Moore said was pretty boilerplate. "He is going to approach [Discovery] in a very different world." True. And that's what happened.

“Going back, no I don’t have any regrets about [TNG]. Some of the storytelling we did in Battlestar Galactica, to graft that on to Star Trek it would have required changing the entire format of the show, and really a different taste of the show. I know we did the best work that we could under the circumstances, and I feel like I pushed the envelope as far as I possibly could.” Sounds to me like he's talking about the difference between TNG and BSG as shows, comparing the two based on his experiences, and nothing more.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

The only defense most have to my argument is a fallacy. That supposedly the 60s (or 90s) had more racism or bigotry and therefore Roddenberry's vision of a better future is tainted. That's a ludicrously wrong argument for the simple reason that Roddenberry didn't die in the 60s and he envisioned TNG and even if the 60s (or 90s) culture had more racism the intention was still hopeful and at the end of the day and most importantly even if the culture of the 60s (or 90s) had more bigotry the intention of the vision was clearly there since compared to the rest of the culture of the real world at the time it was an extremely improved society.

Roddenberry's vision for a better future descended into no one ever having any conflict and humanity being completely flawless and perfect. That is not how humans were in TOS. It had nothing to to with the decade and everything to do with writing compelling characters and challenging stories. You generally can't have those with characters that can't do anything wrong. Roddenberry's vision didn't really come into full swing until TNG and I would say it was one of the aspects that hampered TNG during it's earlier seasons. Many Trek writers hated Roddenberry's dictate of a perfect and flawless future which is why more conflict was introduced into TNG during the later seasons and DS9 became an outright rebellion to that vision.

I think Quark somes up 24th century humans the best when he says this:
'Let me tell you something about Hew-mons, Nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people, as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people... will become as nasty and as violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon. You don't believe me? Look at those faces. Look in their eyes.”

As does O'brien:
When we were growing up, they used to tell us, humanity had evolved. That mankind had outgrown hate and rage. But when it came down to it, when I had the chance to show that no matter what anyone did to me, I was still an evolved human being... I failed. I repaid kindness with blood. I was no better than an animal.

The above quotes are some seriously compelling writing that we never would have got with 'Roddenberry's vision'

 

[Spot261]

The only defense most have to my argument is a fallacy. That supposedly the 60s (or 90s) had more racism or bigotry and therefore Roddenberry's vision of a better future is tainted. That's a ludicrously wrong argument for the simple reason that Roddenberry didn't die in the 60s and he envisioned TNG and even if the 60s (or 90s) culture had more racism the intention was still hopeful and at the end of the day and most importantly even if the culture of the 60s (or 90s) had more bigotry the intention of the vision was clearly there since compared to the rest of the culture of the real world at the time it was an extremely improved society.

That was not his intent.

Clue: Roddenberry was around for "Code of Honour", arguably the single most overt and offensively racist episode ever made.

And it was TNG.

 

[BillJ]

Clue: Roddenberry was around for "Code of Honour", arguably the single most overt and offensively racist episode ever made.

Wasn't it Roddenberry that fired the original director? But it was too late to change his setup of the episode?

 

[BillJ]

The African theme of the episode was brought in by director Russ Mayberry, who had the Ligonians race cast entirely from African-American actors. Mayberry was fired during production by the show's creator Gene Roddenberry, and First Assistant Director Les Landau completed the episode.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Honor_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)

 

[Armus]

I never equated a positive view of the future with human perfection. Look at TMP. Its a very utopian view of the future, people are in soft pastel jumpsuits on the coziest and most technologically advanced Enterprise. Thats the Enterprise Id like to board. Yet humans are still humans with separate, selfish agendas. Both Kirk and Spock are motivated by personal not altruistic goals. And that creates conflict with the other characters in the film. That's not human perfection.

 

[Alan Roi]

Moore's shows aren't even as remotely as coherent as Discovery and Picard have been. The one exception has a book series to follow. Without that it would be a mess as well.

 

[cultcross]

Moore's shows aren't even as remotely as coherent as Discovery

Really got to disagree there. I don't recall a sudden jump to bizarre mirror universe hijinks half way through BSG season 1.

 

[Alan Roi]

Really got to disagree there. I don't recall a sudden jump to bizarre mirror universe hijinks half way through BSG season 1.

The MU hijinks were foreshadowed enough times leading up to the crossover to the MU. People were constantly speculating that Lorca was from the MU and providing evidence that the show was giveing us. A visit was inevitable.

BSG on the other hand repeatedly threw stuff at us that was never foreshadowed, culminating in a bunch of characters singing a Bob Dylan song nonsensically. And what sense was ever made of Starbucks resurrection? Or the endless claims that the Cylons had any sort of plan. I could go on all day, really.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I'm not sure how anyone could describe Discovery as the nuBSG version of Star Trek. nuBSG presented a relentless and forlorn effort to hold onto civilization than ends with the abandonment of everything but humanity and community. Discovery shows people using their faith in their values and reaffirming their humanism in order to solve the problems of their society. "The power of math" may have been a cringe-worthy utterance, but it does reflect how problem solving involves intense study and scientific effort. As much as Discovery picks away at an image of a perfect organization, the series, as a whole, is significantly more optimistic than nuBSG by several factors.

 

[Spot261]

Wasn't it Roddenberry that fired the original director? But it was too late to change his setup of the episode?

Mayberry?

There have been different stories circulate about that. One is that it was due to the casting, another that it was dus to on set behaviour.

Both, in different ways, mitigate some measure of Roddenberry's personal attitudes, but here's the nub.

If everything positive and visionary about TNG was down to GR and it was others such as Moore who undid that, why do we see a situation where such an outright racist episode could slip under the radar?

This wasn't later on when his health was failing and he was being sidelined, this was at the very height of his powers. If the OP's interpretation of events is correct, that Roddenberry was truly master and commander guiding the show towards his vision then CoH couldn't have been made. Either he approved of it, or he wasn't truly at the helm.

It can't work both ways.

 

[Racefuel]

Or simply as I have said before...Roddenberry was the classical inherent racist where the noble and savage native needs to be saved by the enlightened mostly white Federation

 

[Armus]

Or simply as I have said before...Roddenberry was the classical inherent racist where the noble and savage native needs to be saved by the enlightened mostly white Federation

Nichelle Nichols would probably disagree.

 

[BillJ]

Either he approved of it, or he wasn't truly at the helm.

I don’t think we’ll every truly know. Behind the scenes of TNG season one was a train wreck.

 

[Spot261]

I don’t think we’ll every truly know. Behind the scenes of TNG season one was a train wreck.

Indeed, all I'm saying here is really a parallel of your own observations in the SW threads about KK. If one must take blame for failures one must also take credit for success and vica versa.

If the OP wants TOS/early TNG to be a pure expression of "Gene's Vision" then CoH is a part of that "vision", as are the many examples of overt racism shown by our heroes in both series.

Ferengi are all venal and petty, Klingons are all aggressive, Vulcans are all logical and humans are free to disparage those traits.

If, however, he is willing to accept a more nuanced view that fallacy can be averted, but it also means we have to apply the same open mindedness to newer iterations.